Talk:Episode 1663 (22nd December 1976)
Vera's "divorce" I have to take issue with the change made to the note on this episode. The rationale for changing it was "just because Fred said Vera was divorced doesn't mean she was. People get things wrong, get told lies, make things up, etc". There is a great deal of supposition in that statement. The overall reason for the statement is almost certainly that Vera's back history hadn't been established yet by the writers (it was only her second appearance) and a one-line statement was forgotten by the time that the writer's decided that Jack existed. I think in changing the meaning of the note which previously highlighted a continuity error, to one that supposes that the line could be right and an unstated rationale by the characters lies behind it, is wrong.--Jtomlin1uk 16:08, May 24, 2012 (UTC) If that's how you feel I certainly won't change it back. I thought I made a valid statement considering the continuity of the show. To go by what was intended at the time, who can really say? Do you know for sure that Fred Gee got it right? I think there's a lot of supposition in that. Isn't being a fan about interpreting what we see/hear on screen? Fans of long- running shows often have to reconcile seeming inconsistencies. Doing so, as I tried to do here, shows a respect for the overall intention of the show to be a presentation of a rational universe, not one in which facts change retroactively. derekbd 16:19, May 24, 2012 (UTC) :Ah, I see where you are coming from - but I'm afraid that’s not the way we approach things. We try to log all pertinent information about the programme and never rationalise it when it clashes with other established “facts” previously presented within the narrative, although we do draw the reader’s attention to such matters. We don't view ourselves as a fan site but more as an encyclopaedia therefore any two clashing facts will both be presented and the question as to which fact is "right" is not answered because no answer exists except in the mind of the reader (perhaps!). A recent and very good example is the incident with Annie Walker giving the Rovers to Betty Williams in her will. As many people said, she couldn't have done that because she was a tenant, not the owner. So in episodes up to 1984, Annie remains a tenant and in 2012 episodes she willed the pub to Betty as the owner – both things happened. We highlight the error in episode notes but never, ever attempt to answer the discrepancy within the plot summary. Likewise on Annie's character page we would write her up as the tenant in her profile (because that's what was presented in earlier episodes she appeared in) and note the sudden 2012 change in the notes at the base of the page again with no attempt to answer why. I hope that's clear - please say if it's not because it's sometimes difficult to express these things.--Jtomlin1uk 18:05, May 24, 2012 (UTC)